JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 5.5.2015 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (H.P.) Circuit Court at Barsar, in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2014, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused’ for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences under Section 376 read with Sections 511 and 354(C) IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for offence under Section 354(C). He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for the commission of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 11.7.2014, prosecutrix along with her sister visited the Police Station, Barsar, and reported to the police vide application Ext. PW-1/A that she was a permanent resident of village Samtana, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur. On 11.7.2014, at about 11.00 AM, she after doing her agriculture work in the fields was taking bath in the courtyard of village after raising a curtain with a bed sheet. While taking bath, accused came there. She, on seeing him, sat down and told the accused not to come there as she was bathing. But accused came to her and caught hold of her from her leg and then pushed her down on the ground. She fell down on her back. Accused removed his pajama and when he was in the process of removing his underwear, she got up and on making a noise, tried to run away but the accused caught hold of her from her leg and then dragged her on the ground. In the meantime, her niece Sangeeta reached there. Other persons namely Satya Devi, Santosh Kumari and Kamla also reached the spot. Accused ran away. She disclosed to them that the accused, on finding her naked and alone, attempted to commit rape on her but could not succeed as they had come in the meantime. She received injuries on her back, neck and leg. On the basis of application, FIR Ext. Accused ran away. She disclosed to them that the accused, on finding her naked and alone, attempted to commit rape on her but could not succeed as they had come in the meantime. She received injuries on her back, neck and leg. On the basis of application, FIR Ext. PW-12/A was registered. Photographs of spot were taken. Slippers of accused left behind at the spot were taken into possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused made disclosure statement Ext. PW-7/A, in the presence of Constable Ajay and Constable Happy Singh that he could identify the place where he attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. Accused was subjected to medical examination vide MLC Ext. PW-4/C. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was also done on 12.7.2014 vide Ext. PW-4/A. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. He has denied the case of the prosecution. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported Judgment dated 5.5.2015. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and record carefully. 7. Prosecutrix (PW-1) testified that on 11.7.2014, at about 11 AM, she had gone to her cowshed to keep her cattle. After keeping her cattle in the same, she raised a curtain outside her residence to take bath. When she was taking bath, accused came there and asked whether there was water in the tap. She told that there was no water and he should bring some vessel. She thought that the accused had gone. She continued taking bath. While she was taking batch, accused suddenly appeared there and on seeing him, she sat down and closed her arms. Accused started gazing at her and on her asking as to what he was doing, accused pulled her from her legs. She fell down. Accused took off his pajamas and underwear, upon which she raised alarm and caught the accused in order to stop him from doing wrong act. On hearing her cries, Sangeeta PW-3, Satya (PW-2) and Kamla came to the spot. She fell down. Accused took off his pajamas and underwear, upon which she raised alarm and caught the accused in order to stop him from doing wrong act. On hearing her cries, Sangeeta PW-3, Satya (PW-2) and Kamla came to the spot. When Sangeeta was coming, accused pulled her from her legs, resultantly she fell down. Accused after pulling up his pajama, ran away from the spot. She sustained injuries on her neck, back and legs. Had the aforesaid persons not come on the spot, accused would have committed rape upon her. She visited the house of Pradhan twice but she was not at home. She was alone in her house. She called her sister Kamlesh Kumari and with her went to the Police Station, Barsar to report the matter to the police. She presented application Ext. PW-1/A against accused. Police took her to hospital for medical examination. Police visited the spot. Spot map was prepared by the police. They took photographs and recovered slippers of accused which were left on the spot. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the accused was her brother-in-law. They were two members in the house, she and her son. House of accused was 200 metres from her house. Her house consisted of two rooms and a separate kitchen. She denied the suggestion that they have two latrines and one bathroom. She admitted that there was a path leading from Samtana to Paniali village in front of cowshed. She also admitted that the path after leading through the front of her cowshed further leads through its backside. She admitted that the path had been made pakka by the Panchayat. She admitted that there were 35-40 houses in the village Paniali. She admitted that land of the accused measuring 5-6 Kanal was adjoining to her house. She denied the suggestion that there was no land adjoining to her house. She denied the suggestion that she used to cultivate the land of accused. She also denied the suggestion that sometimes back, fields had been taken back. She denied the suggestion that dispute took place due to lopping of Biul trees. She had raised curtain with the help of one big bed sheet. Curtain had been raised with the help of drum and wooden sticks. She admitted that the bed sheet was not transparent. Accused caught hold of her from both the legs. She denied the suggestion that dispute took place due to lopping of Biul trees. She had raised curtain with the help of one big bed sheet. Curtain had been raised with the help of drum and wooden sticks. She admitted that the bed sheet was not transparent. Accused caught hold of her from both the legs. She received injuries on her back and head struck against stone. Application Ext. PW-1/A was got written from Pradhan Roma Devi at Ukhali on the same day. She admitted that her brother was serving as HHC in the Police Department at Police Station, Barsar. She admitted that her village fell in Police Station Bijhari. Accused while committing said act remained at the spot for 30-35 minutes. 8. Satya Devi (PW-2) corroborated the statement of PW-1. She testified that on 11.7.2014, she was working in her fields and complainant was grazing her goats near her fields. She asked her to move to the house but she told that she would come after tying her goats in the cowshed. She waited for her but when she did not come for sometime, she returned to her house and started taking bath. When she was taking bath, she heard the prosecutrix shouting and calling her daughter’s name, on which she asked her daughter to go and see what was happening. After sending her daughter, she also rushed towards the complainant’s cowshed. When she reached there accused had already left and complainant told her that while she was taking bath, near her cowshed after raising curtain, accused came there and tried to rape her. She also told her that accused ran away towards the jungle when Sangeeta reached there. When she reached there, prosecutrix was undressed. On the next day, police visited the spot, prepared spot map, took photographs and took into possession a pair of slippers of accused which were lying at the spot. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the complainant was her real sister-in-law. They had good relations with the complainant. Their houses were adjacent. She denied the suggestion that the bathroom was jointly used by them and complainant. She admitted that land of accused was adjoining to their houses. She denied the suggestion that the land of accused used to be cultivated by the complainant. She denied the suggestion that the complainant was asking accused to give land for constructing a house. She denied the suggestion that the bathroom was jointly used by them and complainant. She admitted that land of accused was adjoining to their houses. She denied the suggestion that the land of accused used to be cultivated by the complainant. She denied the suggestion that the complainant was asking accused to give land for constructing a house. She denied the suggestion that accused and complainant had a quarrel regarding lopping of Biul trees as well as cutting of grass. Curtain was raised with the help of bed sheet. 9. Sangeeta (PW-3) deposed that the complainant was her aunt (Chachi). She was a student of BA 1st year at Bhota. On 11.7.2014, at about 11.30 AM, her mother, while she was taking bath, called her and asked her to go and see as to why complainant was shouting. On this, she rushed towards the cowshed of prosecutrix. On reaching there, she saw that her aunt was naked and accused was also coming from that side. She picked a Danda for beating the accused, but he on seeing her, ran towards jungle. Soon thereafter, her mother and Kamla Devi also reached the spot. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the path existing in front of cowshed was used to reach village Paniali. She denied the suggestion that there was a quarrel between the complainant and accused regarding cutting of grass. Curtain was raised with the help of drum and bed sheet. 10. Dr. Sapna (PW-5) is the Medical Officer. She examined the prosecutrix and observed following injuries 1. Complain of pain on left shoulder 2. Scratch over nape of neck left side. 3. Bruise measuring 2 x 3 cm over left ankle. 11. All the injuries were simple in nature. She issued MLC Ext. PW-4/A. She also examined the accused and issued MLC Ext. PW-4/B. 12. Roma Kumari (PW-5) deposed that on 11.7.2014, prosecutrix met her at Ukhali and disclosed that accused had attempted to commit rape upon her while she was taking bath by raising curtain. She wrote application Ext PW-1/A to SHO Police Station Badsar. On the next day, police visited the spot at 7-7.30 AM on the identification by prosecutrix, prepared spot map and took photographs. Police also recovered a pair of slippers lying on the spot and which, as per the prosecutrix were of the accused. 13. She wrote application Ext PW-1/A to SHO Police Station Badsar. On the next day, police visited the spot at 7-7.30 AM on the identification by prosecutrix, prepared spot map and took photographs. Police also recovered a pair of slippers lying on the spot and which, as per the prosecutrix were of the accused. 13. Constable Happy Singh (PW-7) testified that on 25.7.2014, accused made a disclosure statement in his presence and in the presence of Constable Ajay Kumar that he could lead the police party to the place where he attempted to commit rape on the complainant. Statement was reduced into writing vide Ext. PW-7/A. 14. ASI Parkash (PW-10) testified that on 12.7.2014, Inspector/SHO Shashi Pal visited the spot and handed over investigation of the case to him. At about 7-7.30 AM, he visited the spot which was identified by the prosecutrix. Photographs of the spot were taken. Spot map Ext. PW-10/A was prepared. A pair of plastic slippers lying on the spot was recovered. He recorded the statements of the witnesses Satya Devi, prosecutrix, Roma Devi under Section 161 CrPC. He also recorded statements of Sangeeta, Kamla and Santosh Kumari. Accused was arrested on 23.7.2014. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the path shown in Ext. PW-10/A was Kachha and leads to village Paniali. He denied the suggestion that investigation was undertaken on the dictates of Karam Chand. 15. SI Amar Singh (PW-11) deposed that on 25.7.2014, case file was handed over to him for investigation by Inspector Shashi Pal. Accused made a disclosure statement. It was reduced into writing vide Ext. PW-7/A. Accused led the police to the spot where he had attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. Map Ext. PW-11/A was prepared. 16. It is evident from the statements of the witnesses analyzed hereinabove that the accused has arrived at the spot at a time when prosecutrix was taking bath. He asked for water. Prosecutrix told him that there was no water and he should bring a vessel. However, accused pulled her from her legs. She fell down. Accused thereafter took off his pajamas. She raised alarm. Satya Devi (PW-2) and Sangeeta (PW-3) came on the spot. Accused again pulled her from legs. She fell down. Accused pulled up his pajama and ran away. She received injury on her neck, back and legs. Matter was reported to the police. She fell down. Accused thereafter took off his pajamas. She raised alarm. Satya Devi (PW-2) and Sangeeta (PW-3) came on the spot. Accused again pulled her from legs. She fell down. Accused pulled up his pajama and ran away. She received injury on her neck, back and legs. Matter was reported to the police. Statement of PW-1 (prosecutrix) is duly supported by PW-2 Satya Devi, about the manner in which prosecutrix shouted for help and she sent her daughter to the spot. PW-2 Satya Devi noticed that the prosecutrix was undressed when she reached the spot. She has denied the suggestion that there was any quarrel. Similarly, PW-1 (prosecutrix) has also denied that there was any enmity between the parties about the fields or lopping of Biul trees. PW-3 Sangeeta has also deposed that her mother was taking bath. She told her to go and find out why the prosecutrix was shouting. She reached the spot. She found her Aunt in naked condition. Accused was also going that side. She picked a Danda however, accused managed to escape. Soon thereafter, her mother Kamla and Aunt also came on the spot. PW-4 Dr. Sapna has noticed simple injuries on the left side of her (prosecutrix) neck and bruises measuring 2 x 3 cm were found on her left ankle. She proved MLC Ext. PW-4/A. Slippers of the accused were taken into possession by the police. Police visited the spot after disclosure statement was made by the accused. 17. Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate has vehemently argued that the accused has been falsely implicated due to the dispute between the parties. However, fact of the matter is that, as noticed above, there was no enmity between the parties. No woman would risk her honour by leveling false allegations that too against her brother-in-law. He also argued that it is not believable that the prosecutrix was taking bath in a temporary bathroom raised near a busy thoroughfare. It has come in the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) that she has constructed a bathroom with the help of drums and wooden sticks. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that in the villages, there are no permanent bathrooms in most of the houses and temporary bathrooms are constructed/raised. Accused was seen coming from the spot by PW-3 Sangeeta. Accused has pulled down prosecutrix from her legs twice, resulting into injuries. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that in the villages, there are no permanent bathrooms in most of the houses and temporary bathrooms are constructed/raised. Accused was seen coming from the spot by PW-3 Sangeeta. Accused has pulled down prosecutrix from her legs twice, resulting into injuries. She raised alarm and even after raising alarm, accused pulled the prosecutrix down. Delay in filing the FIR has been duly explained since PW-1 prosecutrix has twice visited the house of Pradhan for reporting the matter. Statement of PW-1 prosecutrix is duly corroborated by PW-2 Satya Devi, PW-3 Sangeeta and PW-5 Roma Kumari. Accused has made an attempt to commit rape upon the prosecutrix by reaching the spot and removing curtain. He had the intention to commit the offence of rape upon the prosecutrix. Thus, the prosecution has duly proved the case against the accused under Sections 376 read with Sections 511 and 354 © IPC. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 18. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any